Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

"Current theory and computer models suggest that protoclusters as massive as the one observed by ALMA, however, should have taken much longer to evolve."

"How this assembly of galaxies got so big so fast is a bit of a mystery, it wasn't built up gradually over billions of years, as astronomers might expect," said Tim Miller, a doctoral candidate at Yale University and coauthor on the paper."

(emphasis added)
Usual lies about science - this article is about groups of galaxies, not a galaxy.

"Solar flares, cosmic radiation, and the northern lights are well known phenomena. But exactly how their enormous energy arises is not as well understood. Now, physicists at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have discovered a new way to study these spectacular space plasma phenomena in a laboratory environment. The results have been published in the renowned journal Nature Communications"

"But exactly how their enormous energy arises is not as well understood."

This is very good.

Usually this science people tell us that they already know and understund everything.

Like Syksy Räsänen, finish cosmology says that expansion of space is so certain that it is beyond reasonable doubt. He says so even though no one knows how to describe words, and visually what is on the expanding space when its metric coordinate system grows.

"Solar flares, cosmic radiation, and the northern lights are well known phenomena. But exactly how their enormous energy arises is not as well understood. Now, physicists at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, have discovered a new way to study these spectacular space plasma phenomena in a laboratory environment. The results have been published in the renowned journal Nature Communications"

"But exactly how their enormous energy arises is not as well understood."

Irrelevant article used to lie about cosmology. The body of evidence is so great that "expansion of space is so certain that it is beyond reasonable doubt" is correct. It mostly takes unreasonable or ignorant or deluded people to doubt an expanding universe. There are a few scientists with reasonable doubts because they have studied cosmology and know what they are talking about.

Irrelevant article used to lie about cosmology. The body of evidence is so great that "expansion of space is so certain that it is beyond reasonable doubt" is correct. It mostly takes unreasonable or ignorant or deluded people to doubt an expanding universe. There are a few scientists with reasonable doubts because they have studied cosmology and know what they are talking about.

In the real world, this is interesting science that has nothing to do with his delusions.

The formation of stars starts with gas clouds clumping together and collapsing. These are called star-forming cores. The star-forming cores further collapse to make groups of young stars. There was a "astrophysical law" that the mass distribution of star-forming cores is the same as the young stars. But that law was based on gas clouds close to the Solar System which are not representative of the diversity of the clouds.

Now we have the ALMA antenna array looking at the more typical, active star-formation region W43-MM1 and "the distribution did not obey Salpeter's 1955 law". There were more massive cores than predicted and fewer less massive cores.

"A phage consists of a head and a tail. The tail acts as an injection needle that can penetrate the cell membrane. The DNA is stored in the head of the phage, and exerts a pressure of around 60 bar. That is equivalent to 20 times the pressure in a fully inflated car tyre, or the pressure at 600 meters under water. Once the tail of the phage penetrates the cell, the 'valve' opens and the DNA is injected into the cell at high speed. This quickly releases the pressure of the DNA inside the phage. An outstanding question facing the researchers was therefore: what forces the last portion of DNA to enter the cell once the pressure has been released?

In an experiment, the researchers determined the speed of the DNA transport from phage to cell in phages in which only the initial pressure was different. In both cases, the researchers observed two distinct steps. Calculations confirmed their suspicion that the driving force in the first step is indeed the pressure, and nothing but the pressure."

"A phage consists of a head and a tail. The tail acts as an injection needle that can penetrate the cell membrane. The DNA is stored in the head of the phage, and exerts a pressure of around 60 bar. That is equivalent to 20 times the pressure in a fully inflated car tyre, or the pressure at 600 meters under water. Once the tail of the phage penetrates the cell, the 'valve' opens and the DNA is injected into the cell at high speed. This quickly releases the pressure of the DNA inside the phage. An outstanding question facing the researchers was therefore: what forces the last portion of DNA to enter the cell once the pressure has been released?

In an experiment, the researchers determined the speed of the DNA transport from phage to cell in phages in which only the initial pressure was different. In both cases, the researchers observed two distinct steps. Calculations confirmed their suspicion that the driving force in the first step is indeed the pressure, and nothing but the pressure."

.

😀😀😀

MrNicePressure

.

Who the heck would have been arguing that viral infection was inherently unphysical?!? Heck, even computer virus infection is "a matter of simple physics".

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?

If not, why not?

If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

Only the idiots assume that quarks are attracted to each other, the more they are furthest from each other.

The truly expanding quarks push each other away from each other, the less farther they are. And then the amount of external pressure / pushed force remaining constant is enough to push them towards each other more easily than normal.

Only the idiots assume that quarks are attracted to each other, the more they are furthest from each other.

The really expanding quarks push each away from each other not so much, the farther they are. Then the amount of external pressure / thrust that remains constant is enough to push them towards each other more easily than normally.

Only the idiots assume that quarks are attracted to each other, the more they are furthest from each other.

The truly expanding quarks push each other away from each other, the less farther they are. And then the amount of external pressure / pushed force remaining constant is enough to push them towards each other more easily than normal.

And thats the way it is!!!

.

Ah so they "push each other away from each other," and yet get pushed "towards each other". Do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself.

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?

If not, why not?

If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

"A phage consists of a head and a tail. The tail acts as an injection needle that can penetrate the cell membrane. The DNA is stored in the head of the phage, and exerts a pressure of around 60 bar. That is equivalent to 20 times the pressure in a fully inflated car tyre, or the pressure at 600 meters under water. Once the tail of the phage penetrates the cell, the 'valve' opens and the DNA is injected into the cell at high speed. This quickly releases the pressure of the DNA inside the phage. An outstanding question facing the researchers was therefore: what forces the last portion of DNA to enter the cell once the pressure has been released?

In an experiment, the researchers determined the speed of the DNA transport from phage to cell in phages in which only the initial pressure was different. In both cases, the researchers observed two distinct steps. Calculations confirmed their suspicion that the driving force in the first step is indeed the pressure, and nothing but the pressure."

The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance between pairs of quarks. After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10,000 newtons (N), no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks.[5]

"When the quantum dynamics of the atom chain were measured, there were surprising oscillations that persisted for much longer than expected and which couldn't be explained.

Study co-author, Dr. Zlatko Papic, Lecturer in Theoretical Physics at Leeds, said: "The previous Harvard-MIT experiment created surprisingly robust oscillations that kept the atoms in a quantum state for an extended time. We found these oscillations to be rather puzzling because they suggested that atoms were somehow able to "remember" their initial configuration while still moving chaotically.

"Our goal was to understand more generally where such oscillations could come from, since oscillations signify some kind of coherence in a chaotic environment—and this is precisely what we want from a robust quantum computer. Our work suggests that these oscillations are due to a new physical phenomenon that we called 'quantum many-body scar'.""

"When the quantum dynamics of the atom chain were measured, there were surprising oscillations that persisted for much longer than expected and which couldn't be explained.

Study co-author, Dr. Zlatko Papic, Lecturer in Theoretical Physics at Leeds, said: "The previous Harvard-MIT experiment created surprisingly robust oscillations that kept the atoms in a quantum state for an extended time. We found these oscillations to be rather puzzling because they suggested that atoms were somehow able to "remember" their initial configuration while still moving chaotically.

"Our goal was to understand more generally where such oscillations could come from, since oscillations signify some kind of coherence in a chaotic environment—and this is precisely what we want from a robust quantum computer. Our work suggests that these oscillations are due to a new physical phenomenon that we called 'quantum many-body scar'.""

Atomic cores expand and recycle with ALL of the other expanding kernels with expanding pushing force that has, for example, the nature of expanding electrons and the expanding light.

.

Once again the article you quote says no such thing as you asserted. Evidently all your "Atomic cores expand and recycle with ALL of the other expanding kernels with expanding pushing force that has, for example, the nature of expanding electrons and the expanding light." can push is just unrelated spam.

So, have you actually tried that rope experiment yet?

If not, why not?

If so, why haven't you reported what you found?

It would clearly demonstrate the difference between pulling and pushing forces. Particularly on materials that, well, react differently to such differing forces.

How do the observations of that experiment support your "point of view", particularly about there being no pulling forces.

"When the quantum dynamics of the atom chain were measured, there were surprising oscillations that persisted for much longer than expected and which couldn't be explained.

Study co-author, Dr. Zlatko Papic, Lecturer in Theoretical Physics at Leeds, said: "The previous Harvard-MIT experiment created surprisingly robust oscillations that kept the atoms in a quantum state for an extended time. We found these oscillations to be rather puzzling because they suggested that atoms were somehow able to "remember" their initial configuration while still moving chaotically.

"Our goal was to understand more generally where such oscillations could come from, since oscillations signify some kind of coherence in a chaotic environment—and this is precisely what we want from a robust quantum computer. Our work suggests that these oscillations are due to a new physical phenomenon that we called 'quantum many-body scar'.""

"The team then reconstructed the star formation history in the galaxy using infrared data taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The observed brightness of the galaxy is well explained by a model where the onset of star formation was another 250 million years ago. The model indicates that the star formation became inactive after the first stars ignited. It was then revived at the epoch of the ALMA observations: 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The astronomers suggest that the first burst of star formation blew the gas away from the galaxy, which would suppress the star formation for a time. The gas then fell back into the galaxy leading to the second burst of star formation. The massive newborn stars in the second burst ionized the oxygen between the stars; it is those emissions that have been detected with ALMA."

"The team then reconstructed the star formation history in the galaxy using infrared data taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The observed brightness of the galaxy is well explained by a model where the onset of star formation was another 250 million years ago. The model indicates that the star formation became inactive after the first stars ignited. It was then revived at the epoch of the ALMA observations: 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The astronomers suggest that the first burst of star formation blew the gas away from the galaxy, which would suppress the star formation for a time. The gas then fell back into the galaxy leading to the second burst of star formation. The massive newborn stars in the second burst ionized the oxygen between the stars; it is those emissions that have been detected with ALMA."

"The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature.

"We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton's periphery," explains Volker Burkert, Jefferson Lab Hall B Leader and a co-author on the paper.

Burkert says that the distribution of pressure inside the proton is dictated by the strong force, the force that binds three quarks together to make a proton."

"The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature.

"We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton's periphery," explains Volker Burkert, Jefferson Lab Hall B Leader and a co-author on the paper.

Burkert says that the distribution of pressure inside the proton is dictated by the strong force, the force that binds three quarks together to make a proton."

"The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature.

"We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton's periphery," explains Volker Burkert, Jefferson Lab Hall B Leader and a co-author on the paper.

Burkert says that the distribution of pressure inside the proton is dictated by the strong force, the force that binds three quarks together to make a proton."

"Nuclear physicists have found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star."

There is zillions smaller expanding thing which recycling expanding pushing force with each other.

"You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.""

There is zillions smaller expanding thing which recycling expanding pushing force with each other.

"You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.""

I just wonder how today physics explain that pressure proton center?!?

This is pressure.
Simply put: In this case, pressure is created by things bouncing off each other. Pressure in a gas is molecules bouncing off each other. Pressure in a proton is quarks and gluons bouncing off each other.

The strong interaction is the pulling force that stops the pressure from destroying protons. No pulling force, the quarks and gluons escape and there is no proton.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.